linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: triage for March 18, 2012

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <184427.1332194213@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date:	Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:56:53 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	Tony Breeds <tony@...eyournoodle.com>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: triage for March 18, 2012

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:41:44 -0000, David Howells said:
> Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
>
> > Umm.. it's not clear to *me* that it's intended to be a negative 16 bit?  Or
> > am I just missing context not present in the patch?
> >
> > (I have no idea if the rest of the patch is OK or not, but that comment
> > didn't give me warm fuzzies....)

> The patch permits a 64-bit hosted assembler to represent a large 32-bit
> unsigned integer (such as 0xfffffff1) as a negative integer where the
> instruction being assembled has a signed immediate operand.

Oh, I understood the gist of the patch.  My question was specifically
regarding the comment saying:

"0xffffe000 is clearly intended to be a negative 16-bit value"

I'd guess it was a negative *32* bit value, unless there's context constraining it to 16....

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped